U.S. President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hold a joint press conference announcing the U.S. peace plan for Gaza, Monday, September 29, 2025, the White House. (Photo: White House/Joyce N. Boghosian)

By Qassam Muaddi

The response of Hamas to U.S. President Donald Trump’s “peace” plan to end the war in Gaza came in late on Friday. It sparked immediate and conflicting reactions.

Five days after the U.S. president first announced his plan, the Palestinian movement gave its answer in a statement announcing its readiness to “release all hostages — living and dead – according to the exchange formula included in President Trump’s proposal.” Hamas added that it was ready to enter talks “to discuss the details.”

In a move practically unheard of by a U.S. president, Trump shared Hamas’s statement on his account on Truth Social:

“Based on the Statement just issued by Hamas, I believe they are ready for a lasting peace,” Trump said, adding that “Israel must immediately stop the bombing of Gaza, so that we can get the hostages out safely and quickly!”

Minutes later, Trump announced Hamas’s acceptance of his plan in a live address at the White House, considering the event “a big day, unprecedented in many ways.” Trump added that he “looks forward to having all [Israeli] hostages come back to their parents,” stressing that “we have to put the final word in concrete.” The U.S. President thanked Arab and Muslim states for “helping me put this together,” promising that “everybody will be treated fairly.”

Hamas’s response to Trump’s plan came a day after the Israeli army sealed off Gaza City. Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz issued a “final warning” to the estimated 500,000 Palestinians still in the city, announcing that those who decide to remain will be considered “terrorists or supporters of terror.”

Netanyahu ‘surprised’ amid international approval

Qatar, Egypt, and Turkey also accepted Hamas’s response, while French President Emmanuel Macron said that the “release of all hostages and a ceasefire in Gaza are within reach,” and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer said Hamas’s response was “a significant step forward.”

Trump’s near-immediate positive response to the Hamas statement was reportedly met with “surprise” by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to an unnamed Israeli official who spoke to Israel’s Channel 12. Netanyahu had held a deliberation on the Hamas response to Trump’s plan before the U.S. President published his Truth Social statement. According to Channel 12, the Israeli Prime Minister considered the Hamas response a rejection of Trump’s framework.

Netanyahu had reportedly stressed the need to coordinate with the U.S. on a response, so it would not seem that Hamas had accepted the Trump deal, according to Channel 12, which also cited Israeli officials saying that the Hamas response “could pave the way to a deal.”

What Hamas accepted

In its official statement, Hamas praised “the Arab, Islamic, and international efforts, as well as the efforts of U.S. President Donald Trump, aimed at halting the war on the Gaza Strip, achieving a prisoner exchange, allowing immediate entry of humanitarian aid, rejecting the occupation of the Strip, and opposing the displacement of our Palestinian people from it.”

Hamas’s statement then announced the movement’s acceptance of Trump’s prisoner exchange formula, which would see the release of 250 Palestinians from Israeli prisons in exchange for the release of all Israeli captives. The statement added that Hamas was ready to “immediately enter into negotiations” through Qatari and Egyptian mediators to “discuss the details.”

The statement also affirmed Hamas’s readiness to hand over the administration of the Strip to a Palestinian commission of independent “technocrats,” which would be formed “based on Palestinian national consensus and supported by Arab and Islamic backing.”

Most importantly, the Hamas statement addressed the other parts of Trump’s plan concerning the future of Gaza and the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” affirming that it must be subject to a “comprehensive national position” based on international law and UN Resolutions. This position would have to be discussed as part of a “unified Palestinian national framework,” which Hamas said it would participate in “with full responsibility.”

What Hamas didn’t accept

But the Hamas statement also skirted over a number of key parts of Trump’s plan that have been widely regarded as a non-starter for Palestinians, as it would prevent Palestinians from administering their own lives and forestall the prospects of a Palestinian state.

These included the clause in Trump’s plan about forming a “board of peace” headed by the U.S. President, the widely-reported potential participation of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, and the deployment of international and Arab forces to “demilitarize” Gaza. Most importantly, the statement made no mention of the demand for Hamas and other resistance factions in Gaza to disarm.

Following the statement, Hamas’s head of international and legal relations, Mousa Abu Marzouq, told Al Jazeera that Hamas was concerned with the first nine points of Trump’s 20-point plan, which related to ending the war, ending the occupation of Gaza, humanitarian aid, and who would rule the Strip.

Abu Marzouq added that these issues required further negotiations, asserting that some of Trump’s points were “unrealistic,” including the release of all captives within 72 hours. He also noted that the plan did not include any clear framework for how the Israeli withdrawal would take place.

Refusing a ‘mandate in new form’

Abu Marzouq affirmed that Gaza must be ruled by “an independent commission of technocrats, and this is what we agreed on with the rest of the [Palestinian] factions in Cairo,” referencing the inter-Palestinian agreement back in August to form an independent commission to run Gaza based on an Egyptian proposal.

As for the clauses of Trump’s plan concerning the future of the Palestinian Authority (PA), the future of the Gaza Strip, and the future of a Palestinian state, Abu Marzouq said that these issues could not be decided upon by Hamas alone. “Hamas is part of the Palestinian people, but there are other parts,” Abu Marzouq said. “All the national factions, the national movement in all its colors, the PLO—which represents the Palestinian people—and the Palestinian Authority, which is already engaged in a political process with the occupying state. All of them are partners in drawing the future of the Palestinian people.”

The Hamas official called on Egypt to initiate dialogue with all Palestinian parties to reach a common position on these issues. Abu Marzouq added that “it is absolutely impossible that this national consensus would accept a mandate on any part of the Palestinian people,” opining that the proposal for the administration of the Strip by a “board of peace” was a “mandate in new form,” referencing the post-World War I British Mandate over Palestine over a century ago.

Regarding disarmament, Abu Marzouq said that Hamas would hand over its weapons to a Palestinian state “on the first day it is established,” asserting that Hamas could not continue to be an armed organization under a Palestinian state.

[…]

Via https://mondoweiss.net/2025/10/hamas-just-accepted-trumps-peace-plan-heres-what-it-didnt-accept/

By Frank Bergman and Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi

by Dennis and Elizabeth Kunich | Oct 6, 2025

The imperial project to formalize occupation under international management via a transition authority would embed permanent colonial control, deepen division, and ensure that Gaza be subjugated.

Gaza is an occupied territory. Its borders, airspace, imports, exports, and even calories are controlled by Israel and its Western backers. Gaza does not need another flag flown above its ruins; it needs the right to rebuild on its own terms.

The Mirage of “Transition”

Western governments are preparing a plan for Gaza’s postwar administration. The proposal, advanced through quiet coordination between Washington, London, and Jerusalem, would establish a new international body called the Gaza International Transitional Authority to govern the territory for several years following the conflict. The concept, promoted as a stabilization effort, is said to draw inspiration from earlier foreign-led missions in Kosovo and Lebanon.

At the center of this “plan” is the risible suggestion that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair should lead the authority, overseeing Gaza’s reconstruction, policing, and governance on behalf of the self-proclaimed international community.

Gaza Governor Blair. “You What?!”

Tony Blair, then British Prime Minister, gave George W. Bush political cover for the invasion of Iraq which resulted in the deaths of over 1,000,000 Iraqis. On July 23, 2002, as recorded in the infamous Downing Street Memo, Blair’s government reviewed the case for the war and concluded that “the [U.S.] intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” Put another way, President Bush was lying about Iraq being a threat.

The British government, led by Blair, knew Bush was lying. Tony Blair gave special legitimacy to that lie. The U.S. attack on Iraq commenced seven months later.

Blair’s slavish devotion to the Western narrative, no matter how totally corrupt, credentials him well to lead a proposed Gaza International Transitional Authority, an interim body that would rule Gaza for several years before handing power to a restructured Palestinian Authority.

This is an imperial project by definition, one that would embed permanent control, deepen division, and ensure that Gaza will be subjugated. What a surprise.

Enter Tony Blair as a peace envoy, illustrating the grotesque inversion of reality wherein an architect of war becomes an exemplar of peace for a people who have experienced the ravages of genocide at the hands of the very western interests Blair continues to serve.

More recent reports indicate President Trump or Trump-aligned representatives will also take part in this pretense of governance, but my guess is that the grim implications of such an endeavor will give the White House pause and provide even more encouragement for the appointment of Blair as Governor of the Gaza Occupation, packaged as reform.

The proper motto of this cynical rebranding of colonial rule by the same powers who drew the map of the Middle East, should be: ‘What is broken, stays broken.’ Under this condition, imperialism as humanitarianism becomes war as peace.

Who better to keep this wretched system in place than Blair, who as the envoy of the Middle East’s Quartet (composed of US, EU, UN and Russia) from 2007-2015, served Israel’s interests alone.

Kosovo: Occupation Disguised as Liberation

Let’s dive deeper into the proposition that Blair and his advocates present Kosovo and Lebanon as what they propose to do in Gaza, demonstrating that international administration can produce liberal democracy.

In their telling, NATO’s 1999 intervention was a triumph. Milosevic’s forces were expelled, the United Nations assumed control, and a stable state eventually emerged.

But history tells a different story. Under the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, foreign officials assumed full executive, legislative, and judicial control.

Local leaders were reduced to consultation. At first, this was accepted as liberation. Within five years, it was understood to be not liberation but occupation.

Riots erupted in 2004. The phrase “UNMIK equals governance by bullets” captured the truth of an unaccountable government imposed without consent. .

Kosovo today is undergoing an even more rigid implementation of a failed and wrong headed model of forced fracture and sectarian governance masquerading as peace and democracy. It is a place where Western powers celebrate the illusion of stability while maintaining the reality of dependency. The Kosovo model which institutionalized occupation under international management is proposed for Gaza.

Lebanon: The Architecture of Division

Both Kosovo and Lebanon were built on the same imperial premise: Divided peoples are easier to control than united ones.

The Lebanon model entrenched colonial sectarianism under local disguise. Under the French Mandate beginning in 1920, Lebanon became a testing ground for what the West still calls power sharing. France redrew borders to create a Christian majority state under Maronite leadership and wrote sectarian identity into the constitution.

The National Pact of 1943 later codified this arrangement, guaranteeing each religious community fixed control of the highest offices: The presidency to a Maronite Christian, the prime minister to a Sunni Muslim, and the speakership of parliament to a Shia Muslim.

What looked like balance was in truth a system of permanent division. This structure was not born from Lebanon’s culture. It was born from French colonial strategy, designed to preserve influence by keeping the country internally fragmented.

Over time, sectarianism became not a reflection of society but its architecture. Patronage, corruption, and militia rule followed. Every community became a fiefdom, every ministry a prize for one sect’s elite.

When civil war erupted in Lebanon in 1975, the fault lines had already been laid by this colonial inheritance. The war was the logical outcome of a system that defined citizens first by confession and then by allegiance. Even the Taif Agreement of 1989, which ended the war, merely recalibrated the quotas. It did not remove the sectarian scaffolding that guaranteed paralysis.

The result is a nation where governance itself is gridlock, where corruption, inequality, and dependency masquerade as coexistence.

That Lebanon is now invoked as a plan for Gaza, manufactured fragility presented as multicultural harmony, endless negotiation sold as peace demonstrates the West knows nothing about Lebanon and even less about Gaza.

Repeating History in Gaza

Applying the Lebanon approach to Gaza is to deliberately reproduce the conditions of conflict and call it reconstruction. It is to confuse division for diversity, subjugation for security, and occupation for order.

Gaza is not a failed state in need of administration. It is an occupied territory. Its borders, airspace, imports, exports, and even calories are controlled by Israel and its Western backers. It has lived under blockade and bombardment for years. Its economy and infrastructure are systematically strangled.

An imported administration, armed, funded, and directed by outsiders would not bring relief. It would extend the existing system of colonial control, formalizing it under international management.

Such a mission would amount to the same outcome: Foreign rule as liberation.

Gaza does not need another flag flown above its ruins; it needs the right to rebuild on its own terms.

Lessons Unlearned: From Sykes-Picot to Blair

Western diplomats, custodians of the system that created the crisis, describe such missions as temporary. Gaza knows what ‘temporary’ means: Decades of interim arrangements that never end, checkpoints that never close, and an occupation that has metastasized into permanence.

From the Sykes-Picot Agreement to the Balfour Declaration, Britain and its allies carved the Middle East into artificial states, installed sectarian governments, and called it order, creating conditions for the sectarian government of Israel born of partition and maintained through military dominance.

The fossilized thinking of Sykes-Picot and Balfour creeps along through the hoary pretense that the so-called civilized West must oversee the unstable East, through an insidious colonial mission repackaged as a twenty-first century imperative.

A Tale of Two Leaders

Tony Blair and I stood on opposite sides of history.

Blair used his office to justify the invasion of Iraq. I used my position as a member of the United States House of Representatives to try to prevent it.

I was not a head of state, but I used every power in the congressional parliamentary playbook to challenge both Bush and Blair, including helping to mobilize millions of people against the Iraq war.

That contrast matters. The same governments that waged that war based on lies now want to place Tony Blair in charge of Gaza, as if the co-author of one tragedy could administer the cure for another.

What Real Peace Requires

The attempt to manage Gaza as an isolated province under international administration is the latest stage in a century of colonial containment. It mirrors the British Mandate’s logic; to stabilize through control, to promise independence while denying it in practice.

This is not a conflict between two equal sides. It is a prolonged occupation underwritten by Western arms and Western diplomacy. To speak honestly about peace in the Middle East is to confront that reality.

A real peace cannot be built upon partitions, blockades, and externally imposed governments. It must begin with the recognition of Palestinian sovereignty, not as a concession but as a right. It must mean the end of occupation, the dismantling of apartheid systems, and the restoration of equality under law.

Until the world is willing to face the full moral and historical truth of Palestine, every transition plan will simply be another name for domination of what was once a single, continuous homeland concertedly reduced to isolated fragments.

The land of Palestine exists as disconnected enclaves, each surrounded by military checkpoints, walls, and settlements built as instruments of control, in defiance of international law.

Gaza is sealed from the sea and air. The West Bank is carved into zones of occupation, each overseen by Israeli forces and illegal settlers. East Jerusalem is being erased through bureaucratic strangulation and displacement. What remains of Palestine is a patchwork of prisons, the deliberate outcome of a violent colonial system which makes mockery of self-governance.

Israel’s government, shaped by apartheid policies and militarized expansion, has created the instability it now claims to fight. It has normalized violence, dehumanized millions, and extinguished any hope for peace.

A transitional authority in Gaza is not meant to change that underlying reality. The true transition, from occupation to coexistence, from apartheid to equality must begin inside Israel.

Dmitry Orlov

This just in from Russia’s National Association of Bodyguards. Machine translation of the salient portion of the original Russian text (lightly edited for readability) is below. The original text is available here. Please share this link as widely as possible.

The surrounding scene from various distances and angles at the moment the target was struck are reflected in numerous video and photo evidence available for independent analysis on global social media, including official media outlets. According to the official investigation by the FBI, a lone gunman fired a single shot from a Mauzer rifle caliber .30-60 Springfield from a distance of 130 meters. The bullet was said to have remained in the victim’s neck and would be presumed, according to the statutory investigative procedure, to have been removed for presentation by the prosecution as key evidence for the cause of death.

The victim’s funeral took place on September 21, 2025. The only report directly associated with the bullet was “the coroner found a bullet just under Kirk’s skin.” This suggests that the autopsy was performed and its results should have been included in the investigation file before the funeral. The human neck does not pose a serious obstacle for a rifle bullet of the stated caliber. The bullet would have easily passed through muscles, the trachea, blood vessels (carotid arteries, jugular veins), and, with a high probability, even the cervical vertebrae, since at such a close range for its specification, the bullet loses very little of its velocity and energy. Depending on the bullet type (150 grains or 180 grains refers to the weight of the projectile, not the cartridge; a grain is the weight of a barley grain = 0.064 grams), its muzzle velocity ranges from 830 to 900 m/s or more. Its muzzle energy at the muzzle is approximately 3,500-3,800 joules. For comparison, the energy of a 9×19 mm pistol is approximately 500 joules. At this distance, the bullet would still have had a velocity of approximately 700-850 m/s and an energy of approximately 2,500-3,000 joules. The energy retained by a standard .30-06 caliber bullet with a standard propellant charge at a range of 130 meters, without interference or ricochet, is more than sufficient to guarantee penetration of the human body, including bone.

The fact that the bullet stopped a .30-06 round fired from 130 meters into a human neck under ideal ballistic conditions is inexplicable from a standard ballistics perspective. To explain it, one would have to assume a confluence of exceptional and unlikely circumstances, such as a worn gun barrel, an incomplete powder charge in the cartridge, a homemade cartridge, the use of a specific bullet with abnormally high expansion (such as a bullet used for small game hunting), combined with a hit on dense bone. Other factors producing such an outcome include an extremely acute angle of impact (if the bullet entered the neck almost tangentially, it could travel a long distance through soft tissue, for example, from the back of the head to the clavicle in an arc), significantly increasing the contact area and energy loss; or a hit on a cervical vertebra, if the bullet struck the body of the cervical vertebra directly. The circumstances under which a bullet would expend all its kinetic energy on shattering dense bone tissue upon impact are not decisive for the case under consideration. A .30-06 bullet typically either shatters a vertebra and continues onward, or lodges within it, but not in the soft tissue behind it.

Conclusion: In a real forensic examination, such a result would be an extremely rare occurrence, requiring a thorough investigation of all its details, such as the type of weapon, the quality of the cartridges, the powder, the bullet, the trajectory, etc.

[…]

Via https://boosty.to/cluborlov/posts/758debd5-922a-4448-aaac-3a490537e9ff

The Hidden Hand Behind UFOs

Matthew Ehret (2025)

Film Review

This well-researched documentary explores the role of prominent US intelligence figures in fabricating a complex UFO mythology for a gullible Western public. Their primary political aim seems to be building public support for a one world government to fight dangerous space aliens.

This UFO psyops has clearly intensified over the last two decades, with “whistleblowers” electrifying congressional hearings by calling for full disclosure of thee secret treaties.

Filmmaker Matthew Ehret traces this heavy promotion (on multiple cable networks, including the History Channel) of hostile extraterrestrials to to the fall of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and the need to spook the US public with a new enemy.

In 1992 Lawrence Rockefeller (who financed H.G. Wells War of the World’s broadcast in 1938) founded the Disclosure Initiative, with the Hillary Clinton, John Podesto the Clinton Foundation immediately assuming a major role in the Initiative.

Two year later, a number of military intelligence and psychological warfare specialists founded the National Institute for Discovery Science at Skinwalker Ranch, which went on to become a center associated with weird paranormal activities, such as vampires, ghosts and space alien sightings, as well as cattle mutilations. The founding of these two institutions was the culmination of a campaign beginning in 1978 to rebrand the apparent crash of a mysterious circular aircraft in Roswell New Mexico.*

The National Enquirer (a tabloid newspaper available at every supermarket checkout until the rise of the Internet) participated heavily in this campaign. Created by the CIA’s Office of Policy Coordination in 1951, the National Enquirer ran frequent articles on Roswell and ufology, intermingled with genuine news articles, from its inception. In 1978 they began giving $5,000-10,000 rewards to readers who came up with the most convincing reports and photos of UFO sightings. Between 1956-1980 the CIA also ran the National Committee on Aerial Phenomena.

In 1984 the (clearly forged) Majestic 12 (MJ-12) documents were supposedly “declassified” and circulated widely among UFO enthusiast. These documents provided copies of treaties Truman supposedly sight with space aliens giving them permission to kidnap, sexually molest and anally probe Americans in return for the right to reverse engineer their crashed UFOs. Although these documents were clearly proved to be forgeries (they were typed on a typewriter produced after 1965), they’re still available on several government websites.

Ehret also profiles individual US intelligence officers involved the so-called “Aviary” and their specific role in America’s UFO psyops. Among them are

• Falcon – Sargent Richard Doty, special agent to the Office of Air Force Special Investigations assigned to handle lay ufologists.
• Seagull – Bruce Maccabe, US Naval Surface Lab, channeled military appropriations towards UFO disclosure project.
• Owl – Dr Hal Putoff, also managed the CIA’ Project Stargate remote viewing program.
• Penguin – Colonel John Alexander, closely involved with the CIA’s remote viewing and psychic warfare program, a well as working closely with satanist Michael Aquino in the CIA’s Phoenix Program in Vietnam, and bringing parapsychology and psychedelics into US military training in the 1980s.
• Chickadee – Commander CB “Scott” Jones, formerly with the Office of Naval Intelligence and president of the American Society for Psychical Research, known for its psychological warfare against US citizens since 1885.
• Parrot – Jacques Vallée, Rosicrucian who worked with UN agency he helped create to negotiate with aliens.
• Buzzard – Gordon Novel, “freelance” ufologist who founded two CIA front companies in the 1960s and infiltrated New Orleans DA Jim Garrison’s investigation into the campaign to assassinate JFK.

*Roswell is three miles from Walker Airbase. Ehret believes the crash debris most likely resulted from one of the disk-shaped aircraft the US Air Force acquired from the Nazis when they surrendered after World War II.